# It is now illegal to wear an anti-Bush shirt in west Virginia **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 14, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103 "2004-07-14T17:13:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/121 "2004-07-16T16:56:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you concede that it’s perfectly legal, then my part in this argument is done. Actually, I haven’t conceded that yet. You need to show me some law that states that. And even _if_ it’s illegal, there’s the question of constitutionality. ---
**Author:** ![quixotic78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/3ab097/32.png) [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/122 "2004-07-16T17:22:22Z")
**Bricker** , I think your MLK/KKK example is a bit off. I think that the police have a very reasonable expectation that such a mix would incite violence. Do the police have the same reasonable expectation of violence in the case at hand? I would contend that no, they wouldn’t. The only possible violence, ISTM, would be the Ranks getting jumped by a cadre of Bush supporters, and that seems like a very distant possibility. I’ve got no objections to removing someone who is making a distraction – shouting, waving a giant poster, whatever. But I don’t think a T-shirt qualifies. If the Ranks had started chanting “Ker-ry Ker-ry!” then you can shunt 'em out. But before that… I mean, what if Bush decided he didn’t like the color blue? Could the SS (hehe) remove people wearing blue shirts and jeans? Yeah, I know, it’s an absurd hypothetical, but the issue at hand seems rather absurd, too. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/123 "2004-07-16T17:41:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …On public land, the police have the legal authority, for purposes of crowd control and safety, to separate dissenting groups of protesters… Is that what you’re going to contend? Either or both? Do the Ranks somehow qualify as a “crowd” needing to be controlled, all two of them? No, that would be silly, I see no smilies, so you must be in earnest. Were they in some danger of being rent asunder by crowds of raving Bushiviks? I think not. So who’s “safety” is under threat, here? The rally for the Leader is clearly and unquestionably a political advocacy, even more so than an MLK rally, because the prinicipal focus of the event is a man running for public office. The event _itself_ is a public advocacy, a political act, protected under the Big One, as well as any public advocacy in rebuttal. The police have no authority, nor will they, God willing, to determine which expressions of viewpoint are legitimate and may be openly expresssed, and which require segregation to a “free-speech” zone. Now, if the Ranks had, _en masse_, attempted to storm the stage and wrest the microphone from the Forces of Darkness, you might have a case in terms of preserving public order. But they did nothing more than stand there with their shirts on. The shirts contained a message at odds with what the organizers of the event would prefer, tough shit. (Probably would have left you alone about this if you hadn’t dissed my football coach…) ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/124 "2004-07-16T18:08:02Z")
[quote=bricker] the state of the law that permits police to segregate protesters with opposing views for reasons of crowd control and safetyI take your point. The laws are laid in response to often more extreme cases and applied to lesser. In this case I think questionably, but you are right The laws have been around for a while. Here is where I think the status is changing. > [@](#): > > No, as I understand it, there was an area there reserved for protesters. There was, but that area was not in sight of the protestors intended audience. The enforcement is twisting the argument that the protest area ruling in the abortion provider case can be used in a political case. But I see no RICO similarities in presidential speeches. The protestor should have a right to send a message to their intended recipient if that recipient is an elected official on public land. Since this isn’t the only time these detentions have been used, and since it has even previously been called out by the ACLU, I think it is fair to point out that it is a pattern of abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/125 "2004-07-16T18:10:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There has to be a balance between legitimate security concerns… Since you seem to be resting much of your justifications for the administration’s policies on security, permit me a small thought experiment. Mr. X is a bad guy. Mr. X wishes to do the President physical harm. Mr. X wishes to gain access to an event at which the President will be in attendance in order to perpetrate said harm. Mr. X has a choice of dress and accoutrement to aid the gaining of said access. Which is more likely?[list=a][li]He wears a t-shirt that says “Free Mumia!” and carries a sign bearing the legend “No blood for oil.”[\*]He wears a t-shirt that says “Up with Halliburton!” and carries a sign reading “Four more years!”[/list]Which one will Mr. X select in order to gain access to the event?[/li] It is _transparently_ obvious, given this entirely plausible hypothetical, that the removal of otherwise law-abiding citizens _for the sole reason that their t-shirts disagree with the President’s policies_ is entirely political in nature. These events are being stage-manged for television, as our Elder Curmudgeon **elucidator** suggests, in order to show the President before a crowd of utter unanimity. The egg-throwing rabble that greeted Bush’s inauguration was, I’m sure, a shock to the political system, and allowing the President to be further tainted by any hint of the growing discord in this country would be political suicide. _ **POLITICAL** _ suicide. Period. These onerous practices stink to high heaven, and I’m depressed that any thoughtful individual would attempt to defend them. On the other hand, I am further depressed to note that a “free speech zone” has been established in Boston to segregate the monkeywrenchers from the Democratic convention. What’s bad for the goose is bad for the gander, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/126 "2004-07-16T18:18:08Z")
> [@](#): > > _by mhendo_ > > They were wearing fucking t-shirts, ferchissakes. It’s a sorry state of affairs, certainly, but wading into a Republican circle-jerk in a shirt that insults the President is a sure-fire recipe for pain. I’d rather run Pamplona on a pogo stick. Likewise, a fellow dressed in a giant bug spray can, festooned with “AIDS Kills Fags Dead”, will be removed from a Gay Pride Parade for his safety, and the safety of the people around him. And while it by no means absolves this administration’s wholesale discount of our Civil Rights, keeping protestors from bodily harm, and generally maintaining public order, is reasonable motivation for excluding this couple from the event. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/127 "2004-07-16T18:46:00Z")
Well, this explains why Bush did not attend the NAACP convention. The SS must have found it impractical to move all the attendees to a free speech zone a block away. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/128 "2004-07-16T18:58:08Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > Likewise, a fellow dressed in a giant bug spray can, festooned with “AIDS Kills Fags Dead”, will be removed from a Gay Pride Parade for his safety, and the safety of the people around him. At the Pride St. Louis parade a few weeks ago, there was a fellow in an Uncle Sam costume on stilts with a sign proclaiming that Jesus could save us all. Another guy was passing out Jack Chick tracts. Neither was accosted nor escorted away from the parade. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/129 "2004-07-16T19:50:10Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > At the Pride St. Louis parade a few weeks ago, there was a fellow in an Uncle Sam costume on stilts with a sign proclaiming that Jesus could save us all. Another guy was passing out Jack Chick tracts. Neither was accosted nor escorted away from the parade. Could he, legally, have been escorted away, if police believed his safety was in danger? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/130 "2004-07-16T19:59:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Could he, legally, have been escorted away, if police believed his safety was in danger? Perhaps. Are you inferring some sort of point here, **Bricker** , or merely positing an irrelevent hypothetical? I hadn’t noticed you implying that the physical well-being of the Ranks was endangered by crowds of rabid Bushiviks, howling for blood. I can well understand how you might wish to begin a different argument, having so thoroughly lost this one. Is that your intent? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/131 "2004-07-16T20:13:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Perhaps. Are you inferring some sort of point here, **Bricker** , or merely positing an irrelevent hypothetical? I hadn’t noticed you implying that the physical well-being of the Ranks was endangered by crowds of rabid Bushiviks, howling for blood. > > I can well understand how you might wish to begin a different argument, having so thoroughly lost this one. Is that your intent? No. At 11:42 this morning, if you’d care to go back and review my post above, I said: > [@](#): > > There are two areas of debate here: was the action LEGAL, and, if it is, is the law RIGHT or WISE? > > As is my wont, I’m focusing on the first. As a general proposition, such actions by the police are probably legal, with the caveat that such a conclusion is very dependent on the facts of each particular instance. This was my argument then, and it remains my argument now. As a general proposition, it is legal for the police to segregate protesters for purposes of crowd control and public safety. If the police reasonably believed that the Ranks were disruptive threats, then their actions were legal. Now, you may disagree that the Ranks were, in fact, disruptive threats. That’s not the question. The question is, given the facts at the time, could any reasonable police officer believe they were disruptive threats, either because they would be in danger from the crowd, or that they would themselves create a disruption? They entered the event area hiding their shirts, and only after securing entry did they remove their shirts. This suggests a covert plan or scheme. Now, you may have reached a different conclusion than the officers here did. But again, that’s not the question. Could a reasonable officer have reached a different conclusion? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/132 "2004-07-16T21:03:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, you may have reached a different conclusion than the officers here did. But again, that’s not the question. Could a reasonable officer have reached a different conclusion? As with the example I provided, I don’t think it’s reasonable for an officer to have reached that conclusion unless the crowd was acting in a manner that suggested a danger, such as voicing threats, shoving or surrounding the dissenters and shouting at them. In either case, though, removing the shirt or sign would not have nullified that threat because the dissenter was already identified. Therefore, the “remove the shirt or leave” choice can only be viewed, reasonably, as a content-based infringment on Free Speech. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/133 "2004-07-16T21:10:29Z")
Man, I do _not_ want to play Twister against you, you can bend over backwards and peer out from between your knees! The Big One is an overarching principle, subject to abrogation under certain situations of extremity, such as shouting “Theater!” in a crowded fire. By any stretch of the imagination, can we infer that such a threat existed? Have there been untoward incidents in the recent past? Anti-Bush sentiments being expressed on one’s clothing, and being answered by direct physical violence on the inappropriately intelligent? Not to my knowledge, please advise if you have such examples at hand. Was the crowd snarling and threatening the Ranks with harm? Not to my knowledge, unless scowls of displeasure count. Were the Ranks _themselves_ threatening to provoke such violence? You have offered no such evidence. Put simply, you offer a justification that is nowhere in evidence, save within your own imagination. The best you seem to be able to do is offer an insinuation of nefarious purpose, that they “secured admission” with “covert” intent. Can you offer any basis for a “reasonable” officer to interfere with a citizen’s 1st Amendment rights other than such fanciful notions? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/134 "2004-07-16T23:19:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They entered the event area hiding their shirts, and only after securing entry did they remove their shirts. This suggests a covert plan or scheme. Well, yeah. _A covert scheme to exercise their constitutionally protected rights to free speech that are being infringed by the administration for purely political reasons._ How can you not see this? ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/135 "2004-07-17T01:10:25Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Can you offer any basis for a “reasonable” officer to interfere with a citizen’s 1st Amendment rights other than such fanciful notions? I’m sure someone laid down a bit about [Title 18](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1752.html) somewhere else in the thread, though I’m a bit too lazy to look for it. Seems that the Secret Service was well within their lawful authority to detain and question the individuals. I’d wager these rules have existed long before the current administration. The authority is indeed discretionary, but it exists absolutely, and quite frankly, I’m ok with it. It’s not as if free speech is without it’s logistical pratfalls for Law Enforcement, (see previous KKK examples) so that title gives them the ability to deal with it, so what? You don’t like the title, change it. Free speech is NOT an absolute right. Hell, FREEDOM is not even absolute, so what’s happening is the molehill gang here is busy making mountains. Nevermind the fact that the charges were dropped. [rant] It’s so fucking tiresome watching every political wonk prattle on about these rights and this morality, you guys are like the Pubbies on Clinton, so anxious to find a flaw, or chink in the armor, you’re smack in the thick of thin things, to borrow a phrase. We’re not headed to some kind of new Reich, the American people will NOT allow it to stand, we know this. Hell, the Bush Base is the most heavily armed bunch of goons you’re likely to come across, just because they don’t share the sophisticated political viewpoints of his detractors, doesn’t mean that if he put the hammer down, so to speak, they wouldn’t stand and fight. [/rant] ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/136 "2004-07-17T04:54:42Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Nevermind the fact that the charges were dropped. Never mind the fact? In your dribbling idiocy, you fail to realize that the fact the charges were dropped makes the arrest even _more_ ridiculous. It demonstrates that the actions of law enforcement were undertaken for _no other reason_ than to prevent political expression that opposed the views of the current administration. The fact that some dropkicks are “ok with it” simply demonstrates their lack of concern for basic freedoms. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/137 "2004-07-17T05:23:42Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > I’m sure someone laid down a bit about [Title 18](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1752.html) somewhere else in the thread, though I’m a bit too lazy to look for it. > > Seems that the Secret Service was well within their lawful authority to detain and question the individuals. Horse shit. Here’s the critical portion of the referenced statute: > [@](#): > > with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds designated in paragraph (1) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions To paraphrase last night’s Graham Norton, if re-election campaign stops are “Government business” or “official functions” I’ll eat my balls. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/138 "2004-07-17T05:45:14Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Never mind the fact? > > In your dribbling idiocy, you fail to realize that the fact the charges were dropped makes the arrest even more ridiculous. > > It demonstrates that the actions of law enforcement were undertaken for no other reason than to prevent political expression that opposed the views of the current administration. > > The fact that some dropkicks are “ok with it” simply demonstrates their lack of concern for basic freedoms. Bullshit. People defy the law all the time. People are arrested all the time. Charges are dropped all the time. This shit just happens. It happened to a couple of chuckleheads at the Taste of Chicago back in 96. I suppose we’ve all but forgotten about the [Mendoza’s](http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html) It happens. Trying to make it seem like Bush is the great thief of our civl rights, just makes you seem as daft as you think I am. Keep an eye out for the black helicopters. > [@otto](#): > > To paraphrase last night’s Graham Norton, if re-election campaign stops are “Government business” or “official functions” I’ll eat my balls. Would you like fries with that? Despite your opinions to the contrary, the reality is that if the current administration chose to call that a gov’t function, then it was. No one here can say any different. I repeat, if you don’t like the law, change it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/139 "2004-07-17T05:57:59Z")
> [@buttonjockey308](#): > > Despite your opinions to the contrary, the reality is that if the current administration chose to call that a gov’t function, then it was. No one here can say any different. I repeat, if you don’t like the law, change it. Or, vote out of office the “bastard out of Crawford”, who made that call… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2004, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103/140 "2004-07-17T06:48:42Z")
**bj:** _Despite your opinions to the contrary, the reality is that if the current administration chose to call that a gov’t function, then it was. No one here can say any different._ Really? I thought that the very reason that we have campaign ethics regulations was to **prevent** incumbents from abusing their public offices to support their private campaigns. (For example, I certainly seem to remember a whole lot of outrage about Al Gore’s telephoning campaign donors from the White House. I didn’t hear anybody suggesting then that “if he chose to call it a government function, then it was.”) Governing and campaigning are not the same thing, and the people in office don’t get unlimited license to define them. Now, if you’re trying to argue that Bush’s WVa speech **was** in fact a government function by any reasonable interpretation, rather than a campaign event, that’s another matter. But I think you’re out of line in suggesting that anything’s a government function if the administration says it is. \*We’re not headed to some kind of new Reich, the American people will NOT allow it to stand, we know this. Hell, the Bush Base is the most heavily armed bunch of goons you’re likely to come across, just because they don’t share the sophisticated political viewpoints of his detractors, doesn’t mean that if he put the hammer down, so to speak, they wouldn’t stand and fight. \* Weird. You seem to be arguing that we don’t need to complain about relatively minor restrictions of civil rights, because we could count on “heavily armed goons” among our fellow citizens to violently resist any major ones. Personally, I’d rather start addressing the problem **before** it gets really serious. And personally, I think that purging peaceful, law-abiding dissenters from a public event is unacceptable. Telling me that it’s nowhere near as bad as political repression in Nazi Germany doesn’t really reassure me. I don’t **want** Nazi Germany to be my standard of comparison for political unacceptability. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/it-is-now-illegal-to-wear-an-anti-bush-shirt-in-west-virginia/255103.md?page=8)